Trans prisoner who was cleared to go women's prison

The law would have to specify which prisoners continue to be a danger and why. It does this on an exceptions basis, basically if you are released they can’t continue with further restrictions without following the law. So linking it to those on the sex offenders registry for example would be a very reasonable case to make and i hope they do, or make name changes more trackable.

Ah the mythical ever so gentle, fully transitioned years ago, mild mannered transwoman accountant has made an appearance I see.

Male prisons are used to and set up for managing vulnerable males as they have had to be therefore they are perfectly capable of managing this mythical transperson. You do know that male prisons have special wings exactly for the purpose of keeping particular inmates safe from the general prison population.

Finally, a very good tip is for this mythical transperson not to commit a crime that would result in a prison sentence in the first place.

The prison system can manage them the same way it manages any other males who are at risk from some kind of harm.

Pushing risk into the female population and forcing women to provide companionship and therefore forcing the women into a game of pretend if serve longer is not fair to women.

No, there does not.

Just no. No justifications, no explanations. They’re not necessary.

Just women saying no to men in their spaces.

Nope. It's the thin edge of the wedge. Weak men, old men, young men, disabled men are all vulnerable in male prison, but women in prison are not a human shield for vulnerable men.

And there's nothing to say that a man who had plastic surgery pre being convicted of a non-violent crime isn't also a violent person, or a danger to women locked up with him. Men are men, and don't belong in women's spaces, no exceptions.

Surely the justification is that these people represent a danger to the rest of society and even after they have been released we need to know who and where they are.

And sometimes the law recognises that even the general public has a right to this information, e.g. Claire's Law. How does that work if someone can just change their name as easily as they can change their pants?

I imagine that would be tricky, as it would be depriving prisoners of fundamental options non prisoners have and they need justifications where they do this.

This guy "Tiffany" has always reminded me of Sarah Jane Baker, in fact it's really the other way round, as I'd heard of "Tiffany" first.

Yes, I get that.

I'm just saying that we, as a society, need to start saying, "We don't care. Your demands are not reasonable. Your identity is your concern and yours alone. Sit down."

I'm not arguing in favour of "validating" actions.

I'm pointing out that that is what most, if not all, of the "trans community" demands

I don't care whether it's validating or not.

Nobody should care whether it's validating or not.

I don't think strip searches are generally validating, regardless of anybody's gender identity.

Other things which are not supposed to be validating: using the toilet, seeking refuge from domestic violence, going to the gym and using communal showers.

Female prisoners are searched by female prison officers because they are the same sex, not because they share the same identity. If trans women were actually being treated the same as female prisoners, they would be searched by male prison officers because they are the same sex, and their identity isn't relevant here. Insisting on being searched by someone of the opposite sex is being treated differently to women. It isn't being treated the same.

And some pretty pink leggings.

Thank heavens there is no such thing as a ‘common sense judgement’. There is statute book law, which should be the same for everyone. Judges have to interpret the laws and pass sentence in accordance. There are already plenty of instances where the ‘ public’ doesn’t agree with the sentence, there are even instances where sentence has been revised.

I don’t think a random MN member’s ‘common sense’ should be substituted for written law which can be changed or reformulated after due process.

But that wouldn't be validating.

The trans activists / genderists argue as follows:

If the rule is that women prisoners (actual female ones) have to be searched by female officers, then transwomen have to be treated the same, because they are women.

There was a really good thread on here a while ago which explained why this happened and who was signed up to IPSO. The fines are huge up to £1m if you break it. Not all media outlets are signed up to it though.

IPSO guidance changed recently. It's still not great, but I think that if papers decided to correctly sex male prisoners, then a complaint to IPSO wouldn't succeed. (Janice Turner, I think, did this a few months ago and there was no comeback.)

I truly believe the Mail calls people like this "she" because it wants to highlight the absurdity.

I think that if the trans activist community cares so much about transgender prisoners being searched by someone of the same gender identity as them, some trans women should volunteer to train as prison officers for this purpose.

I think this was the guy who, because of his, sorry, her gender identity had to be searched by female prison wardens. I expect none of those women were shrinking violets but the experience must have been very unpleasant, potentially dangerous, and then they have tomorrow to look forward to, to do it all again. For all I know it's still going on. It seems most unions are captured, I don't know if anyone is standing up for them.

He came, literally, within hours of moving to a women's jail.

Oh yes! Awaiting all the 'how can you believe that you this is true?!! It's in the Daily Maaaiill' usual!
By posters who try and show their kind, accepting personas by saying they'll only trust The Grundiad!

I find it interesting how often these men change not just their first names, but their surnames too. I wonder why?

And his name seems to be the only thing he has changed.

Also, I believed until quite recently that people with criminal convictions were not allowed to change their identities. Now I know this is not the case, but I don't understand why it is not the case.

This.

If you believe there is something about you as a person which would make the regular punishment for committing a crime worse than it would be for the average person, you just need to try harder not to commit that crime.

This is the case for me, incidentally. A criminal conviction would result in me being struck off and losing my career, even if I avoided jail time. So I try not to break the law.

You are seeing this from the pov of the male only.

Now try putting yourself in the shoes of a female prisoner.

She is likely to have experienced male violence. Should she be forced to shower with a male?

Scott, 26, smeared excrement over her cell, tore a drip needle out of his own arm, ripped up supposedly tear-proof clothing, and assaulted four warders and a prison nurse during days of "dirty protest"

Interesting that most of the article is written as he, apart for this slip up. I wonder if it was she first then amended to he? Are they signed up to IPSO?

• Sheriff Derek Livingston said: "I'm satisfied that's who he is." Scott shouted: "I'm not 'he' anything – she."*

Good one Sheriff Livingstone!!

There was a really good thread on here a while ago which explained why this happened and who was signed up to IPSO. The fines are huge up to £1m if you break it. Not all media outlets are signed up to it though.

It was a great informative thread, wish I could find it again. Made me less angry when I read that "she" shite.

Although don't know why the Mail doesn't just break it! It would be a great headline"Fined £1m for calling a man She!"

This person is terrifying

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/court-put-lockdown-dangerous-dirty-11081394?int_source=amp_continue_reading&int_medium=amp&int_campaign=continue_reading_button#amp-readmore-target